Sojourners debate on Monday

[eridani]

Great--serve social justice by eliminating non MSM approved candidates.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.P07&item=pentecost07_candidates_forum

Sojourners will host a CNN live broadcast of leading Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama on Monday, June 4, for A Presidential Forum on Faith, Values, and Poverty at Lisner Auditorium of The George Washington University.

Seating in Lisner Auditorium is now full. All who register now will be seated in an overflow room a short distance from Lisner Auditorium.


CNN will broadcast this first-of-its-kind event live as a special edition of The Situation Room from 7-8 p.m. ET. Jim Wallis, CNN's Soledad O'Brien, and nationally prominent religious leaders will ask questions of the candidates. On the afternoon of June 4, an overflow line will begin at the left side of the front entrance to Lisner Auditorium and flow along 21st Street and into Kogan Plaza behind the building. After doors close at 6 pm, a limited number of seats may become available and will be filled by this overflow line.

[lyonn]

1. Hummm, interesting. Wonder if

there are any other Democratic candidates running for president? Apparently they are just a joke. Sarcasm

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Isn't there going to be a CNN debate tomorrow with a focus on "faith and politics" too?

On edit: watching CNN's debate preview, I can't find anything that says that tomorrow's debate will have a faith focus.

[xchrom]

3. ok -- are we gauging the ''christianness'' of the

major candidates?

i'm christian and i'm having severe problems with this concept.

[eridani]

4. What I'd like to ask Jim Wallis about this is--

--if his ethical positions are the same as those of people of faiths other than his, and also the same as those of some people without faith, why faith should be relevant to politics at all. For that matter, why is faith necessarily relevant to religion? Confucians, Buddhists and Taoists get along fine without it. Faith is important to some religions and irrelevant to others, and so what?

On the plus side, left wing Christians are mostly silenced by the MSM, who seem to want to let whackjob Dominionists (actually a Christian heresy if you want to get technical about it) speak for all Christians, so at least a little counterweight can't be all bad.

If someone intends to watch and post commentary, please do.

[doggyboy]

5. It's because we live in a democracy

and in a democracy, if a large number of people believe that faith is relevant to politics, then faith becomes relevant to politicians

You can scream at the clouds, but it won't stop the rain

[eridani]

7. It's relevance is nothing but divisive

Faith by its very nature divides--it's flat out not possible to believe that the Pope is God's representative on earth and also maybe the antichrist at the same time. Common ethics unites. The problem is mainly that its pretty common (and not just here) for people to want rules for other people but not themselves. That's what "faith" is all about, rationalizing and justifying that attitude. I agree with you that we can't ignore it, but why pander to it?

[doggyboy]

9. All issues are divisive

Divisiveness is a pretty poor excuse for rendering an idea "irrelevant", IMO.

And to say that someone is pandering is to suggest that they are not Christian; an odd position to take in a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian. Seeing as how people like Obama, Clinton, Kerry, etc have spent almost their entire lives going to church on Sunday, the position becomes delusional.

[eridani]

10. So did JFK

He made an explicit statement that his particular faith would not in any way be foisted on the rest of the country.

[doggyboy]

11. Was it relevant when JFK said that?

[eridani]

12. Yes. And it still is. n/t

[doggyboy]

13. You just contradicted yourself

You said that such statements were irrelevant and had no place in politics. Now, JFK's statement is relevant.

[eridani]

16. What JFK said was--

--that his religion had no place in politics. How is that a contradiction?

[1932]

19. Did JFK run as an agnostic or an atheist?

Kennedy said that to asssuage people's anxieties that he was going to take orders from the Pope. He didn't say it because he wanted people to think that his faith was not an important part of his character.

I read in a book by someone from the Clinton administration that JFK appealed to him and many other people when he was young who felt they were on the outside (working class people, immigrants, etc.) because they saw his Catholicism (whether or not they were Catholic) as something that made them feel that Kennedy understood their experiences. At that time, thanks to stuff going on in the Europe and the UK, it was a religion associated with people on the bottom . In the case of the person who said that, he was Jewish. Because people were feeling that at that time, I don't think Kennedy was trying to hide his faith or have people believe that he was really an atheist. He was saying that he had faith, but that he was not trying to impose it on society. I think you'll hear that same sentiment from every democrat who has run for president for at least the last 100 years.

[bobbolink]

15. You're so right, that this is divisive.

It's quite insulting to me, as a poor person, to be talked over and decisions like this made without bothering to listen to what it might feel like on the other side of this issue.

There are a number of us feeling pretty invisible on DU because of this very divisive issue.

I wonder what it will take for "liberals" to be willing to hear those of us on the bottom of their totem pole.

[xchrom]

6. as a person of faith -- i mostly agree with you.

and indeed fundies and evangelicals have been ''selected'' to speak for all of us -- so indeed leftist/liberal/progressive christians are ''selected'' to be left out.

mind you leftist/liberal/progressive christian exist in very, very significant numbers.

i don't have a problem with candidates who have a faith using it as a basis for -- whatever -- but we're in never never land now.

and it all becomes hype -- part of the problem -- and there is a lack of rationality -- as evidenced by the republican debate.{the first one}

people watching that debate should have been afraid.

[bobbolink]

14. "If someone intends to watch and post commentary, please do."

Are you saying that seriously, or sarcastically?

I'm not only going to watch, I'm going to record.

However, from the clear tone of your words, I don't hear an actual invitation to post my comments. You've made it pretty clear that your mind is made up.

I don't enjoy posting for the single purpose of being shot down.

[eridani]

17. I'm interested in how they justify leaving out half the candidates

Also in whether or not anybody discusses why they think faith is relevant to ethics, or even to religion.

[Jillian]

8. Gee, that's very "Christian" of them to leave out over 1/2 of the candidates.

:wtf:

[Solon]

18. Only Protestants need apply.

Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson, Dodd and Biden are all Catholics. Draw your own conclusions.